THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NEUROTICS AS WORKERS COMPARED TO NON-NEUROTICS
R.H. BROPHY I. VAN W. RAUBENHEIMER
VOCATIONAL SECTION DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY SOUTH AFRICAN RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH
OPSOMMING
'n Oorsig van die literatuur dui daarop dat dit nie verwag kan word dat neurote op gelyke voet met ander werkers onder normale werksomstandighede kan meeding nie, en dus minder effektiewe werkers behoort te wees. 12 Hipoteses oor die relatiewe effektiwiteit van neurote en nie-neurote in die werk-situasie is geformuleer en getoets. Daar word gevind dat neurote nie beduidend swakker werkers as nie-neurote is nie, behalwe ten opsigte van 3 van die 12 kriteria wat gebruik is, nl. ten opsigte van stiptelikheid, siekte rekord en dissiplinering. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat 'n nuwe oriëntasie tot die probleem van neurose en die neuroot noodsaaklik is en dat neurotiese werkers objektief met betrekking tot werksvermoë beoordeel behoort te word en nie met betrekking tot persoonlik-heidstekortkominge waar laasgenoemde nie ter sake is nie.
A survey of the literature relating to neurosis, the neurotic personality and its adaptation
problems creates the impression that neurotics must, of necessity, be inferior workers when
compared with non-neurotics. An inability of the neurotic to function adequately under what
are to others normal circumstances is emphasized by many writers. Buss (1966, p.46) states
that many neurotic symptoms are uncomfortable by their very nature. The individual is
extremely tense, perhaps even ill, and seeks immediate relief and the ability of such a person
to hold a job is impaired. Coleman (1972, p. 217) describes neurotics as "anxious, unhappy,
ineffective, and often guilt-ridden individuals who do not ordinarily require hospitalization
but nevertheless are in need of therapy".
Coville, Castello and Rouke (1960, pp. 104-105) are of the opinion that an inability to
function at capacity level is a common characteristic in all neurotic reactions and Dunlap
(1946, pp. 136-139) adds that neurotic persons are unreliable in that the difficulties which
they seem to experience make it difficult for them to accept in full the responsibilities that
direct neurotic disorder is the anxiety reaction where the psychological defence mechanisms
developed by the individual are inadequate to handle the underlying anxieties generated by his
conflicts. In its simplest form, the neurotic anxiety reaction is the presence in the patient, at
the conscious level, of a disabling degree of anxiety.
When the views of the writers quoted above are compared it will be noted that when
referring to the neurotic they use words and phrases such as: "the ability to hold a job is
im-paired", "inability to function at capacity level", "difficulty in accepting full responsibility", "a
disabling degree of anxiety", "ineffectiveness" and "unreliability". The implication to be
drawn from the above, and the literature at large supports this view, is that the neurotic will
not be able to compete on an equal footing with a non-neurotic under normal working
conditions, i.e. that the non-neurotic is a more effective worker than the neurotic.
The authors were of the opinion, however, that such a conclusion would be premature
and would represent an oversimplification of a rather involved phenomenon such as work
effectiveness. A systematic investigation providing for the development of specific work
criteria, the formulation of definite hypotheses and a scientific identification of neurotic and
non-neurotic incumbents appeared to be justified. The procedure and some of the major
findings of such an investigation are reported in the following paragraphs.
PROCEDURE
Criterion development
In developing the criteria needed to test the hypotheses (to be presented later), the
senior supervisory staff of the organisation sponsoring the research were consulted. Workers
in this large transport organisation are involved in the reception, breaking-up, shunting,
re-assembling and despatch of trains in the Cape Peninsula. From interviews and consultations
conducted with them 12 criteria of an effective worker were determined. Six of these criteria
were of such a nature that it could be objectively established from the personnel records held
by the organisation and six of the criteria could only be established by means of rating of the
persons concerned by their supervisors. In addition a thirteenth criterion, total work
achieve-ment (also to be rated by supervisory staff) was decided upon.
It was decided to use the junior supervisory staff in the shunting yards to do these
ratings as they worked in intimate contact with the workers and were, therefore, in an ideal
efficiently he performed his allotted tasks. In order to provide a common frame of reference
each rater was supplied with written instructions in both official languages on how to set
about the practical task of rating the staff. In addition, use was made of a 7-point graphic
rating scale recommended by Anastasi (1968, pp. 419-420). A minimum of two, and where at
all possible three, supervisors were used to complete the graphic rating scale in respect of
each subject.
Inter-evaluator reliability
Before the criterion information could be used, it was necessary that the inter-evaluator
reliability be established. The persons selected to act as evaluators in each shunting yard come
from similar backgrounds to each other and have progressed to their present positions via the
same avenues of promotion. Also, the instructions to evaluators were standardized in every
respect. It was, therefore, accepted that they had similar frames of reference which they
brought to bear when they evaluated the staff concerned. In view of this the inter-evaluator
reliability was calculated in terms of the formulae given by Winer (1962, pp. 127-128) for
non-adjusted data.
The reliability coefficients obtained for nine of the ten shunting yards were
unsatisfactory, as can be seen from table 1. According to Winer (1962, p. 127) data should be
adjusted when there is reason to believe that evaluators do not have a common frame of
reference with respect to what is to be judged. In view of the unsatisfactory reliability
coefficients obtained the possibility of this being the case had to be considered. It was
decided, therefore, to re-calculate the inter-evaluator reliability in terms of the formulae given
by Winer (1962, pp. 129-130) for adjusted data.
In view of the fact that the reliability coefficients improved considerably after having
been adjusted (see table 1) thus indicating that all the evaluators probably did not have similar
frames of reference, it was decided to eliminate the five yards where the non-adjusted
reliability coefficients were the lowest for the purposes of the investigation.
Hypotheses
Based on the information secured in developing the criteria the following three
hypotheses were formulated:
H1 : There is no significant difference between neurotics and non-neurotics in respect of
H2: There is no significant difference between neurotics and non-neurotics in respect of
each of the following elements of work achievement:
− Standard maintained in regard to accident prevention, i.e. safety consciousness.
− Co-operation with other persons.
− Devotion to duty, i.e. preparedness to do their fair share of the work to be done.
− Standard of work, i.e. the use of efficient and economical shunting movements.
− Ability to work without supervision.
− Initiative displayed i.e. ability to act swiftly and autonomously during crises.
H3: There is so significant difference between neurotics and non-neurotics in respect of
each of the following aspects of personnel data:
− Unauthorised absenteeism, i.e. number of occasions absent without permission.
− Reporting for duty late, i.e. number of times reporting late.
− Sickness records, i.e. number of days sick leave taken in a period of 12 months.
− Abuse of alcohol, i.e. number of times under the influence of alcohol while on
duty.
− Amenability to discipline, i.e. a willingness to abide by the rules and regulations
of the organisation.
− Accident record, i.e. number of shunting accidents involved in during a period of
12 months.
TABLE 1
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED DATA
YARD N r radj
1 7 ,924 -
2 12 ,338 ,405
3 16 ,620 ,904
4 17 ,186 ,338
5 9 ,279 ,621
6 48 ,681 ,735
7 43 ,633 ,716
8 29 ,114 ,719
9 17 ,633 ,696
The identification of neurotics and non-neurotics
After considering the advantages and disadvantages of both clinical and psychometric
identification of neurotic and non-neurotic individuals, it was decided to use psychometric
identification. The psychometric instruments used to differentiate the subjects into a neurotic
and a non-neurotic group are the Eysenck Personality Inventory (E.P.I.) and the Structured -
Objective Rorschach Test (SORT).
The practical and psychometric considerations in favour of using these two instruments
(the E.P.I. and the SORT) specifically, are discussed in detail elsewhere (Brophy, 1977,
pp.72-82).
Briefly stated, it was decided to use the SORT as a control for the E.P.I. For the
purpose of this article however, only the results pertaining to the E.P.I. will be reported. The
decision to use the E.P.I. for the identification of a neurotic personality structure was based on
the following considerations:
− It is suitable for use with individuals who have a lower intellectual level. (Average I.Q.
(Otis) of the sample equalled 83,15 and the average school standard passed equalled
std. 6 )
− It is a simple Yes - No inventory which is easy to mark manually using templates.
− It gives a direct score for Neurosis.
− It has a "Lie-Scale" to eliminate subjects showing a "desirability response set".
− It is suitable for individual or group administration.
This was important as the staff concerned had to be tested individually or in varying
size groups as they could be released from their duties without disrupting the flow of
the work.
When the decision had been taken to use the E. P. I. (and the SORT) it was decided to
have all the tests administered by the first author. The reason for this decision was to
eliminate all extraneous contaminating factors such as different methods of explaining tests,
differences in control of the test situation, etc., as far as was possible.
The sample
In order to be able to select the two groups of staff necessary for this investigation, a list
was made of all the members of the various grades employed on shunting in the shunting
months service with the organisation on 15th June, 1976. The number of staff who met with
these two requirements, amounted to 401. Of these individuals, 200 were selected by means
of random table numbers to take part in the investigation.
In selecting the groups of staff by means of the E.P.I. to form the "neurotic" (Ne) and
"non-neurotic" (No) groups, it was decided to strictly follow the recommendations in this
re-gard by Eysenck and Eysenck (1964, p. 14). They state that when only Form A as used in this
investigation is employed, an L-score (lie scale score) of 4 or 5 would be considered to
constitute the cutting point where inventory answers ceased to be acceptable. In view of the
foregoing, the cut-off point on the L-scale was set at five. This reduced the random sample of
200 to 93.
Using only the "most normal" and the "most neurotic" extremes of the E.P.I.
distribution and eliminating the centre group, the experimental effect (i.e. the influence of
neurosis on work achievement) is maximised. In order to ensure this it was decided to set the
cut-off points on the N-scale (neurotic score) for the 93 subjects at a score of 6 or less for the
Non-neurotic Group (No) and a score of 12 or more for the Neurotic Group (Ne). The number
of subjects was further reduced when it was decided to use only persons working in the five
yards showing the highest inter-evaluator reliability coefficients. This step resulted in the two
groups of staff being reduced to No = 23 (normal group) and Ne = 16 (neurotic group).
The significance of differences between means in respect of the work achievement
criteria (i.e. Hypotheses 1 and 2) was tested by means of Student's t test. Use of the t test in
this instance, however, presupposes two basic assumptions, i.e. that the samples were
randomly drawn (which was met by the research design) and that the variances of the two
population groups do not differ. The latter assumption was tested by means of the F test. No
significant results were found and the writers could proceed to testing the differences by
means of the t test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 shows that all t values in respect of Hypotheses 1 and 2 were non-significant,
whereas table 3 indicates that t tests performed to test H3 (which did not involve a reduction in
data since it was based on objective personnel records) pointed out significant differences
with respect to three criterion measures.
H1 : There is no significant difference between neurotics and non-neurotics in respect of
their total work achievement.
This hypotheses was based on total scores in respect of six sub-criteria of work
achievement. The hypothesis was supported by the data.
H2 : There is no significant difference between neurotics and non-neurotics in respect of
each of the following elements of work achievement:
TABLE 2
Test for Significance of Differences of Means for H1 and H2: Reduced Group (No = 23 and Ne = 16)
Hypo-
theses Criterion No Ne df t*
H1 Total Work Achievement 30,776 30,980 37 ,113
H2 Accident Prevention 4,935 4,990 37 ,167
Co-operation 4,891 4,936 37 ,153
Devotion to duty 5,080 5,114 37 ,094
Standard of work 5,007 4,906 37 ,313
Ability to work without
supervision 5,464 5,668 37 ,594
Initiative 5,377 5,489 37 ,388 *All t values non-significant
TABLE 3
Test for Significance of Differences of Means for H3 : Complete Group (No = 31 and Ne = 29)
Hypo-
theses Criterion No Ne df t
H3 Unauthorised absenteeism ,290 ,276 58 ,060
Late for duty ,548 ,103 58 1,926** Sickness records 8,645 15,414 58 1,662** Abuse of alcohol - - 58 - Amenability to discipline ,290 ,069 58 1,383* Accident record ,419 ,419 58
*p ≤ , 2
(a) Accident prevention
(b) Co-operation with other persons
(c) Devotion to duty
(d) Standard of their work
(e) Ability to work without supervision
(f) Initiative
Surprisingly, the hypothesis was also supported by the data in respect of all six
sub-criteria. In view of what is stated in the literature one would have expected to find that the
neurotic scored significantly poorer than the non-neurotic, particularly in respect of
sub-criteria (a), (b), (e) and (f). They are, therefore, not only not inferior to non-neurotic workers
in general, but in respect of the individual aspects of work achievement on which they can be
judged, they are the equal of non-neurotic workers.
H3 : There is no significant difference between neurotic and non-neurotics in respect of
each of the following aspects of personnel data.
(a) Unauthorised absenteeism
(b) Reporting for duty late
(c) Sickness records
(d) Abuse of alcohol
(e) Amenability to discipline
(f) Accident record
The data supported this hypothesis only in respect of (a), (d) and (f). The aspects not
supported by the data were:
(b) Reporting for duty late: A significant difference between the neurotic and the
non-neurotic groups was found in this aspect, on the ,1 level. The non-neurotics reported late more
frequently than did non-neurotics.
(c) Sickness records: A significant difference between the neurotic and the non-neurotic
groups was found in this aspect, on the ,1 level. The average number of days sick leave taken
by neurotics is significantly higher than the average of non-neurotics.
(e) Amenability to discipline: A significant difference between the neurotic and the
non-neurotic groups was found in this aspect also, but only on the ,2 level. The non-neurotics were
found to be involved in more disciplinary infringements on average than were non-neurotics.
When the hypothesis testing is considered as a whole, the inescapable inference is that
than the worker with a normal personality structure, despite his personality shortcomings as
described in the literature. Even those aspects where significant differences were found, were
not highly significant. Also, an inspection of these three facets reveals that they can be the
less serious of the six aspects of the personnel data tested in the hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS
The finding of the investigation was against all expectations. The result of the literature
survey was such that one would have expected to find that in most respects, and certainly in
respect of their total work achievement, the neurotic workers were inferior to their
non-neurotic colleagues. That this is not so implies that a fresh orientation to the problem of
neurosis and to the neurotic as an individual is necessary.
One of the by-products of the results of this investigation is to pose the question: "Is not
the industrial psychologist perhaps negatively biased in respect of the worker with a neurotic
personality structure when he considers him to be a poor worker?" This appears to be a
general attitude and in many instances tests are used to ensure that such persons are not
employed. It would now appear that this negative view is not always, or not completely
justified. That the neurotic worker should be judged objectively on his work ability and not on
his personality shortcomings, is a clear implication of this investigation.
If the neurotic individual is able to compete on generally equal terms with the
non-neurotic (or normal) individual, then no justifiable grounds exist for discriminating against
him, for example at employment. The stigma clinging to the neurotic and to the whole
problem area of neurosis should be actively countered so that when the claims of neurotics are
considered together with those of their non-neurotic colleagues, such consideration be based
on objective, factual information and evaluations and not on prejudice.
SUMMARY
drawn that a fresh orientation to the problem of neurosis is necessary and that neurotic workers should be judged objectively on work ability and not on their personality shortcomings.
REFERENCES
Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. New York: MacMillan, 1968.
Brophy, R.H. The Effect of Neuroticism on Job Behaviour. Unpublished M.Comm. thesis. University of Stellenbosch, 1977.
Buss, A.H. Psychopathology. New York: Wiley, 1966.
Coleman, J.C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1972.
Coville, W.J., Costello, T.W. and Rouke, F.L. Abnormal Psychology. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960.
Dunlap, K. Personal Adjustment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1946.
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964.
Kisker, G.W. The Disorganised Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
